Order Directing Release Of Interim Compensation Deposited U/S 148(3) NI Act Interlocutory; Revision Petition Not Maintainable: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a revision petition which was filed to challenge the release of interim compensation deposited under Section 148(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) while holding that the said order was interlocutory, and not intermediate.
The petitioner was arrayed as accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) in a cheque bounce case where the Trial Court had ordered the petitioner to pay 20% of the sum owed to the respondent. The petitioner challenged the Order of the trial court by filing an application under Section 389(1) of the CrPC.
Meanwhile, the respondent had applied to Section 148(3) of the Act to release the said amount. Therefore, the petitioner filed objections to release the said amount. Inspite of objections being filed, the same was allowed and hence, a review petition was filed before the High Court.
The High Court held that “the application filed under Section 148(3) of the Act is allowed and ordered to release the amount.”
A Single Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh observed, “While granting stay direct the appellant to deposit the amount and accordingly, the amount is deposited under Section 148 of the Act. But here is a case of releasing of the amount, which is in deposit under Section 148(3) and the same does not amount to intermediate order and it is only an interlocutory order and hence, revision is not maintainable and the same can be challenged before the appropriate court by filing appropriate petition.”
Advocate Bharath Kumar V. represented the petitioner, while Advocate Mahadev R.K. appeared for the respondent.
The Court explained that Section 148(3) of the Act gives power to an appellate court to direct the release of an amount deposited during the pendency of an appeal. In the event of an acquittal, the court can also direct the repayment of the amount so released, with interest. The trial court while passing its order had noted the same.
The Court clarified that the order concerned the release of the deposited amount under Section 148A of the Act, not Section 143A. The Court noted that the proviso under Section 148 of the Act allowed for the release of the deposited amount by the appellant to the complainant during the pendency of the appeal with a condition for repayment.
“When such being the case, the same cannot be termed as intermediate order as observed by the coordinate bench and it is only an interlocutory order passed on the application filed by the respondent invoking the proviso to Section 148(3) of the Act and the same does not amount to intermediate order and it amounts to interlocutory order and a direction was given to release the amount subject to further proviso as mentioned in Section 148(3) of the Act,” the Court stated.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the revision petition was not maintainable.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: G. Hemanth Chandra v. M/S. Infrathon Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Bharath Kumar V.
Respondent: Advocate Mahadev R.K.
